In Defense Of Traditional Systems by Michael J. Rosenbaum
|
 |
|
If you were to look up the word “traditional” in Webster’s New World Dictionary you would find the following definition: “handed down by, or conforming to tradition; conventional: also tra-di’tion-ar’y or [rare].” For the fighting arts practitioner by studying the traditions of their system is to understand the circumstances, which brought forth its development. And by understanding the development process, you can also gain some insight into the worldviews and ethics, which were present during a systems formation. Views that often are in contrast to the ones held by the contemporary practitioner. Many people today enjoy the sport of fencing but the contemporary fencer’s mindset is quite different than the one held by their 16th century counterpart. For those who practice fencing today the ideal of being killed in a duel of swords during your day-to day affairs is not very probable but for those who practiced the “noble art of defense” some 400 years ago it was indeed a very real threat. To draw your sword against an opponent was to literally take your life in hand.
One contributing factor to the miss-understanding about traditional fighting arts and their use today is that many practitioners miss-take the tournament floor as being one in the same with the hostile environments, in which many traditional systems were developed. In making this assumption the differences between the two methods of training are overlooked. The tournament system is designed for use in a win or loose environment, one with established rules and regulations. In contrast to this traditional combative arts are intended for use in an environment, which has no rules and is concerned with the issue of surviving a life or death engagement. For instance although a sport karate-ka may have superior kicking skills than a Filipino martial artist; if the two were to fight outside of a ring and the Filipino practitioner were to use a bolo knife, kris, or balisong, then all that would be required on their part is one well placed thrust or cut and the match would be over. Thus you have two different systems that are concerned with two entirely different outcomes of an engagement. One being competition, the other combat.
There also is a trend today to reinvent the martial arts. A good example of which is the ever- popular no holds barred fights, UFC, K-1 etc. Without a doubt the fighters who engage in these matches train in a very dedicated manner. However, full contact fighting is not something new to the martial arts. Wrestling, Boxing and Pankration were all practiced by the Ancient Greeks hundreds of years before Christ was born. And these were no holds barred events in the fullest sense because gouging to the eyes, strikes to the throat, breaking an opponents fingers, even trampling a downed fighter were all allowed by the Greeks in which contestants fought naked, outdoors, in the hot summer sun and with no time limits.
With the history of hand- to hand combat being one that dates back to man kinds beginning; the assumption that traditional combative systems are obsolete usually proves to be far from fact. Tradition does not mean to stop progress nor does it mean to curtail martial prowess. Tradition instead is a way to maintain integrity, and keep alive a standard of training, which was developed not in the light of the latest martial arts fad, but, instead in the arena of life and death. We often forget that our own accomplishments have been achieved by other fighters before us yet only in under circumstances far more threatening than our own.
Michael Rosenbaum is the author of: Okinawa’s Complete Karate system Isshinryu and Fighting Arts Their Evolution from Secret Societies to Modern Times. He began his Isshinryu training in 1976.
Back to Isshinryu Ramblings main page
|
